Actually it is their responsibility. It's like buying Ferrari, and running 300km/h within city limits, and later saying- "it's not my guilt, that's care running to fast".
Since IE is included in price of OS, it must be competitive. Otherwise, ppl should be able to exclude any software they don't need to be in OS. For exapmle Firefox, Chrome, and Opera are free browsers, and IMO much better than IE. Why not include them instead like they did with defraggers? Oh, about them. FYI information, Microsoft uses Third-Party proprietary defraggers, which included in price of OS. And to be honest, that is utter crap, even compared to the worst free ones.
And if someone don't care about the price of stuff coming within OS, sets me thinking this OS is loaded "somewhere". If you don't use IE, why pay for it then?

Click to expand...

Then its Coke responsibility to include one Pepsi in every 6 pack.

I like and use IE and am glad its included in every install of Windows. No one is stopping anyone from downloading and using Linux. Don't like IE? Learn to like Linux or OSX.

Where does Linux come in?
The ones who use linux, are smart enough to fix own mistakes. And they are free whether to install something or not. However Windows is paid product and lacks this option. Many ppl say they don't use IE, as long as some others software, so they must have an option to not pay for the options they don't need. Or sell the OS with only required features, make it less expensive. Or, µ$ must include only competitive software for reasonable price. But instead they leave ppl without choice.
The only reasons why Windows is still on the go, is because it's quite simple, and ppl don't know and don't need to learn linux. And the more important factor is that most software, including games have no support for linux-based OS. It's often too hard to get simple proper web-cam drivers.

Click to expand...

Its a MS product. If you don't like what they have to offer then don't buy it. They do not have a monopoly on the market. This is just EU looking for cash again.

Happen what? µ$ already ignored support of e.g. LIVE in many countries where Windows is being sold. As much as games. But it doesn't stop them to get money for these options.

But Microsoft won't quit EU market, because it is significant pile o'cash. So they are ready to suffer any financial punishment, because it still is a tiny bit from what EU consumers pay.
The another reason, hardware manufacturers like Intel AMD and nVidia won't let Microsoft to do this. Windows is a brand that whips up the HW technologies. And linux won't let them get any real pickings being a free platform.

Coke is Pepsi rival. Microsoft has no rivals, except iOS, which isn't even close to the challenge. Rival means something equal, competitively strong. So this gives a choice, which is possible in case of Coke and Pepsi, and is impossible in case of Windows.

Coke is Pepsi rival. Microsoft has no rivals, except iOS, which isn't even close to the challenge. Rival means something equal, competitively strong. So this gives a choice, which is possible in case of Coke and Pepsi, and is impossible in case of Windows.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about the O/S or internet browsers? Pretty sure the post you quoted was referring to browsers. Pretty sure this thread is about browsers. I don't see what right the EU has in taking any of Microsoft's money. They really don't. They don't make any browsers.. or operating systems.

I see a lot of hostility towards the EU based on allegations of spurious motives for unnecessary free-market interference, resentment of success or a blatant cash grab.

I fail to see why MS did not comply - if they provide a quality product, most people will choose it when given the option anyway and however ludricrous a regulation appears, I do not feel that a company's intentional failure to comply should ever be applauded - whether or not the regulation is fair, logical or in need of revision is an entirely different question.

I see a lot of hostility towards the EU based on allegations of spurious motives for unnecessary free-market interference, resentment of success or a blatant cash grab.

I fail to see why MS did not comply - if they provide a quality product, most people will choose it when given the option anyway and however ludricrous a regulation appears, I do not feel that a company's intentional failure to comply should ever be applauded - whether or not the regulation is fair, logical or in need of revision is an entirely different question.

Click to expand...

Because all laws are just and should be followed. If the EU really believed it was a REAL issue they could simply ban Windows from being sold in EU nations. Instead we get a petty fine to add to the EU's coffers. Its a cash grab.

Because all laws are just and should be followed. If the EU really believed it was a REAL issue they could simply ban Windows from being sold in EU nations. Instead we get a petty fine to add to the EU's coffers. Its a cash grab.

Click to expand...

Company trading laws or sanctions imposed by a region the size of Europe? Yes they should always be followed by companies that wish to avoid fines - again why place the onus on the EU, we can at least agree that however ridiciulous the regulation appears, there are little grounds for complaint - Microsoft had little to do if it wished to avoid the cash grab, and it may well be a cash grab, bit before anyone points the finger, it isn't the only one occurring

This is lame, sue MAC OSX then, i bet they don't have a screen to choose a browser from.
I don't find anything wrong with bundling the browser. Everyone is completely free to choose their browser, and ms doesnt block any other browsers

nope
In March 2004, the EU ordered Microsoft to pay €497 million ($794 million or £381 million), the largest fine ever handed out by the EU at the time, in addition to the previous penalties, which included 120 days to divulge the server information and 90 days to produce a version of Windows without Windows Media Player.[4][5][6]Microsoft already had problems with the EU before the debt crisis